Path: rambo.bobo.net!xs4all!xs4all!newsgate.cistron.nl!het.net!212.63.192.161.MISMATCH!newshub.bart.net!news.tele2.nl!newsfeed1.swip.net!swipnet!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed1.earthlink.net!newsfeed.concentric.net!207.155.183.80.MISMATCH!global-news-master From: inFormer@informer.org (Rev Dennis Erlich) Newsgroups: alt.religion.scientology Subject: Re: Erlich vs Co$: The Clams Back Off Date: 19 Dec 1998 10:44:19 PST Organization: inFormer Ministry [a 501(c)3 non-profit, religious organization] "... in service of cult victims and their families." Lines: 111 Message-ID: <367ef062.5641281@news.concentric.net> References: <367d1391.38516354@news.concentric.net> <367B3CF3.6D601098@xs4all.nl> <36802fdf.45763084@news.concentric.net> <367BC313.62804A41@xs4all.nl> Reply-To: informer@informer.org NNTP-Posting-Host: ts038d16.lax-ca.concentric.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 1.5/32.451 X-No-Archive: yes Xref: rambo.bobo.net alt.religion.scientology:156502 Zenon Panoussis : yhn >> They want me found guilty of infringing, and simply placed under a >> permanent injunction (similar to the TRO I am now under) which enjoins >> me from exceeding fair use. z >OK, now I see. But that would be a phyrric victory for them; >it is impossible to define fair use beforehand, so the only >way for you to find out where the limit goes, is to publish >again and again, until you know. It has taken me 4 years of litigation on the subject to still be confused about fair use. You notice I don't quote Elrong much any more? I have a number of posts on hold for review about body thetans, demonic possession, exorcism and their relation to their sales claims that the reactive mind is responsible for irrational behavior and that scienotology is compatible with real religions. >I have introduced this precise argument in my appeal against >the injunction against me. I claim that an injunction must >be clear and plain and not demand complicated legal interpre- >tation on the side of the enjoyned party. Ah, you see, Zenon. This is were you are rong. In America, we are The Proud. This is our pride and joy. The very thing we cite to prove we are a democratic country. Our much touted "Rule O'Law." It is the very same weapon with which our executive branch of government is currently being bludgeoned by the legislative branch. And BTW, it IS clear and plain to the politicians who wrote the law and the lawyers and judges who make their living practicing it on us. It tells us little folk, "stay far, far away from this arbitrary boundary line, or we'll move it to the other side of your 4th Amendment rights and smack into your little homes one morning. Geddit?" It amounts to BAD DOG! And nothing more. >Assuming that you >have the best intentions to respect the injunction, you would >have to be very restictive, go too far on the other side and >abstain from big part of what you think is fair use, in order >not to risk violating the injunction. The courts don't mind at all laying a bit of CHILL on controversial speech. At least not over here they don't. >In other words, an in- >junction that does not specify the precise act that it forbids >you to commit, violates your rights (of free speech in this >case) and does not meet with the demands of clearness and >predictability that should apply to an injunction. I might >be pushing the idea too far, but I think you could have a >case of injunction vs 1st amendment rights there, as long >as fair use is not defined in the injunction itself. You would be dreaming if you expected any American court to notice (or care about) such subtleties as clearly defining what specific acts are enjoined in an injunction. It's just a stay-away order. "Don't you come anywheres around here no mo." >> Without statutory damages, I don't get to present my case to a >> jury. Only Whyte decides the fair use issue. And he's the >> one who authorized the unconstitutional raid in the first place. >> Personally, I trust 12 people who don't think fraudulently obtained >> and unconstitutionally asserted property rights trump first, forth and >> 14th amendment civil rights, more than I would some federal judge who >> issues unconstitutional writs of seizure for excessive quoting. >> But hey. That's just me. > >Yes, I know someone who placed his hopes on the jury and >was bitterly disappointed. I don't know if anyone on such a jury doesn't give a shit about my civil rights. A trial in front of Whyte, on the other hand ... >But if you still want the jury, >aren't there any legal tricks you could play to get it? I leave the "legal tricks" to MoFo. Most of it is above my head. >Would raising a constitutional question such as the above >get you a jury? (excuse the silly questions - my ignorance >of US law is by now well known). Judges usually don't welcome defendants questioning how their injunctions are written, or raising constitutional issues late in a case. Besides, it has been our contention all along that the TRO that I have lived under for 4 years without incident is both unnecessary and legally wrong. This is just a small part of the damages I will be collecting in my counter-claim jury trial. We will be showing the video of the raid. I will testify how they stole my bank statement and gave my bank account number to my vindictive ex wife, rOSA, as payment for her perjurious declaration which they had used to qualify for an ex parte (without giving me the right to respond to their charges first) raid on my home. BTW, with the money I collect in damages, I will be establishing inFormer Ministry's cult recovery facility. Lisa McPherson House. (A half-way house for ex-cultists.) Rev Dennis Erlich * * the inFormer * *